Page 20 - 2023 - 50.4

How Safe is Your Spatial Control?.. continued from previous page
Upon informing the owner, we inquired how we were to spatially land surveying and the nuances surrounding control or boundary
relate the land to the engineering design which was silent on resolution. In this case the client is left wondering which survey-
specific construction control. Only then were we given a copy of, ing firm to believe. The profession loses because the client walks
and introduced to, SS’s unrecorded Survey control and boundary away with a reinforced evaluation and conclusion that surveyors
map. While there was one area of legitimate concern between can’t agree. No obvious benefit is evident.
us; we found that SS performed an RTK survey wherein the
points they chose to calibrate were not all within our map’s ori- I’m convinced over my 40-year plus career that we can do bet-
gin. SS then proceeded to use their calibration to reject historical- ter. There are essentially two basic problems, both of which are
ly found evidence on our established and filed Record of Survey worthy of discussion; a) Client/Public Misrepresentation Using
static boundary corners. The problem isn’t disagreeing, that’s an albeit getting better >2cm RTK Calibrations with limited statisti-
unhopeful but understandable and logical possibility when any cal outlay (e.g. control tweaking), and, b) Control Protection Safety.
two surveys collide from different locations of control despite As to the former; not all calibrations are created equal – some
instructions on minimum requirements for cadastral retracement meet objectives and some do not and we should all be aware
and all monuments were available not more than 4-months prior. that under most situations there are statistical and qualitative
Suspected motive: take control of job, show “superiority” in methods to detect the difference. Another question is “Who is
boundary evaluation, diminish possibility of competition and making the calibration acceptance decision and under what crite-
disagreement by destroying all original control. Outcome: rion/metric?”, e.g. field, office, licensed, etc. Nonetheless, outside
again negative - loss of client ROI, continued loss of respect. of the reality that warping one’s control across surveys isn’t a
We did not pursue this new client any further. homogenous application given gradually changing conditions;
the RTK technique can’t begin to compete with the rigorous
These aren’t cases of one or two missing monuments which solution a static technique affords. The former topic, calibration,
could easily be explained as natural or reasonable causes – e.g. may be addressed in a future article as it is not focus herein. It’s
snow removal, escarpment, surge, accidental destruction, defor- important to note that the advancement of algorithms, addition
mation, or any of a host of plausible causes. Even the occasional of certain satellite constellations and other factors are making
neighbor disagreement is an unfortunate but rational loss. How- real-time surveys much better. But regardless of who makes the
ever, in each of the cases presented herein; there is a plausible decision, the licensed professional(s) is/are ultimately respon-
motive that likely doesn’t involve an owner. The reason the client sible for the outcome. The reality is that using record data, much
isn’t suspected beyond their negative reply to our inquiry is that of which was created with similar, or less precise, possibly mixed,
the losses involved damages or impedes their intent, standing possibly skewed data to control a survey’s boundary resolution
and financial wherewithal, and increase loss of time and value. probably/likely isn’t the preferred method – e.g. we can do better
and it’s not that expensive to do so.
Surveying control that’s remotely located from the project or
boundary isn’t generally obvious or of value to anyone other than As to the latter, Control Protection Safety, and more importantly
surveyors who can easily navigate these days to find them. As what to do about it; is topic on point. It’s not enough to save our
much as we’d like to suspect otherwise, it’s difficult not to match digital records although same assists in protecting our innocence
the evidence with the motive and conclude that unfortunately after damage. We need to be proactively preemptive to the ben-
there appears to be a faction among us practicing out there that efit of our clients first, and also to the defense of our companies
covet that which others work hard to achieve. The client has no and licenses. Warren Buffet concludes that it takes approximate-
motive to destroy things that they rely and simultaneously hold ly 20-years to build a solid reputation and less than 5-minutes
a comparatively diminished understanding and/or appreciation to ruin same. Outside of the accompaniment of his success, and
for intrinsic overall value. Apparently the means by which an ap- while no statistics or study was proffered to prove this seemingly
parent few intend to seek gain pose still fewer limits. The salient plausible hypothesis; it serves as a valid caveat to look to the
difference in comparison to cyber criminals is that by day they past as a motivation for change to design a better outcome and
may refer to themselves as professionals. assurance today and on into the future.
Forgiveness is asked of the inevitable intellectual image progres- We welcome any similar experiences. Please feel free to share
sion. Why, because it’s hard not to describe the problem of inten- your thoughts, similar experiences and resolution(s) – look me
tional project control destruction as being somewhat analogous up. The following represents our response to our former control
with an animalistic desire to mark one’s otherwise free-market protection safety experiences wherein we intend to address
territory by urinating on the project, clientele (e.g. public) and a solution regardless of the source or motive. Respectfully
the profession at strategic points thereon. While that’s graphic, submitted in the quest to raise the bar of professionalism and
it’s a pretty close similitude with the unfortunate reality; a lack client protection:
of respect and professionalism, as well as a total disregard for
the client and the profession. This activity represents disgrace in Cyber Security: This article really isn’t about Cyber Security but
a race to the bottom instead of an honest race to the top! It’s a mentioned to exhibit just how far some may go to compromise
clear disregard for established ethics, courtesies, statutes, laws, control, trade secrets, intellectual property, etc. As to digital pro-
codes and covenants. tection, it’s readily apparent that cyber criminals are becoming
more and more sophisticated, the good news of which is that’s
In the last example, we couldn’t help the client with their urgent similarly the case with IT systems design professionals. Many
work request, partially because of the resulting convoluted changes have been and will be made the focus of which is to try
design based upon their new boundary. In this case, apparently to stay ahead of the threats, keep remotely abreast, remain dili-
SS couldn’t help the client either because they were apparently gent and focused, and search out and apply suitable professional
backlogged with work in their city of record and that is why we expertise, find someone that understands and helps protect you
were called. Either way, the end result is that the client loses. The and your digital and control property.
average project manager or land owner knows very little about
18 The Nevada Traverse Vol.50, No.4, 2023